|
Post by robesh on Jul 22, 2009 0:59:39 GMT -5
The longer ADS transition and inaccurate hip-fire balances being able to see farther and aim easier. You can't snipe the same without a scope. The reason it takes longer to ADS and why it has inaccurate hip-fire is that they wanted to discourage using the sniper at close range.
Regarding a longer ADS transition, it only takes .15 seconds longer to scope in with a scope vs aiming with a rifle.
It's not that the scoped bolt action rifles have an increase in damage, it's that the unscoped rifles have a decrease in damage.
|
|
|
Post by ssog on Jul 22, 2009 5:41:23 GMT -5
Regarding a longer ADS transition, it only takes .15 seconds longer to scope in with a scope vs aiming with a rifle. In FPS terms, .15 seconds is a lifetime. In the extra time it takes a scoped weapon to aim down the sight, a PPSh can fire four bullets (.144 seconds) or a Thompson/Type100 can fire three (.160 seconds).
|
|
mdnl
True Bro
www.youtube.com/NEILoRFCo
Posts: 10,856
|
Post by mdnl on Jul 22, 2009 10:08:31 GMT -5
It's not that the scoped bolt action rifles have an increase in damage, it's that the unscoped rifles have a decrease in damage. Yes, and it shouldn't. If it is deemed it should, then unscoped should be 70 and scoped should be 90.
|
|
|
Post by ssog on Jul 22, 2009 16:05:12 GMT -5
It's not that the scoped bolt action rifles have an increase in damage, it's that the unscoped rifles have a decrease in damage. Yes, and it shouldn't. If it is deemed it should, then unscoped should be 70 and scoped should be 90. 90's too much for a scoped rifle. It'd turn the M1Garand w/ Stopping Power into a 1-shot kill to any part of the body, which would render every other sniper useless (unless you really wanted a Ghillie). And if the bolts dealt 90 while the Garand dealt 70 then the PTRS would render every other sniper useless. And if the non-PTRS bolts dealt 90 while the Garand and PTRS dealt 70, then you'd have a Springfield that dealt more damage than a PTRS, which would just be ludicrous. Besides, it's not like the damage difference is all that meaningful in the first place. If you run with SP (and, if you're using a Bolt Action, no other perk2 makes sense), then the difference between a scoped and unscoped Springfield is that the scoped version kills with one shot to the groin and the unscoped doesn't. A far less drastic solution would be to just give the unscoped bolts a 1.5 multiplier to the lower torso. The only difference that the 20 points of damage would make, then, is that Stopping Power would be mandatory on the unscoped models and only highly recommended on the scoped models.
|
|
mdnl
True Bro
www.youtube.com/NEILoRFCo
Posts: 10,856
|
Post by mdnl on Jul 22, 2009 18:35:45 GMT -5
Yes, and it shouldn't. If it is deemed it should, then unscoped should be 70 and scoped should be 90. 90's too much for a scoped rifle. It'd turn the M1Garand w/ Stopping Power into a 1-shot kill to any part of the body, which would render every other sniper useless (unless you really wanted a Ghillie). And if the bolts dealt 90 while the Garand dealt 70 then the PTRS would render every other sniper useless. And if the non-PTRS bolts dealt 90 while the Garand and PTRS dealt 70, then you'd have a Springfield that dealt more damage than a PTRS, which would just be ludicrous. Besides, it's not like the damage difference is all that meaningful in the first place. If you run with SP (and, if you're using a Bolt Action, no other perk2 makes sense), then the difference between a scoped and unscoped Springfield is that the scoped version kills with one shot to the groin and the unscoped doesn't. A far less drastic solution would be to just give the unscoped bolts a 1.5 multiplier to the lower torso. The only difference that the 20 points of damage would make, then, is that Stopping Power would be mandatory on the unscoped models and only highly recommended on the scoped models. Bolt actions rifles should be 1 shot to the chest without SP though, every time, even against Jugg. I don't want to have to use SP, I would rather Camouflage. Oh and 70 is bearable for the PTRS and Garand as it has insta refire, which is a good enough benefit.
|
|
|
Post by ssog on Jul 23, 2009 21:09:00 GMT -5
Bolt actions rifles should be 1 shot to the chest without SP though, every time, even against Jugg. I don't want to have to use SP, I would rather Camouflage. Oh and 70 is bearable for the PTRS and Garand as it has insta refire, which is a good enough benefit. If you don't want to have to use SP, don't use a bolt action. It's not like you can equip a silencer with them, anyway. There are some weapons which pretty much demand certain perks (SoH on Double Barrel), and some weapons for which certain perks are essentially useless (steady aim on an unscoped bolt)- if you don't like that, use a different weapon. Also, 70 on a PTRS might be fine from a balance standpoint, but there has to be some sort of rational cap in there, too. I'm fine with the PTRS doing the same damage as the Springfield because balance is important, but the PTRS absolutely can NOT do less damage than the Springfield, because that runs exactly OPPOSITE of reality.
|
|
mdnl
True Bro
www.youtube.com/NEILoRFCo
Posts: 10,856
|
Post by mdnl on Jul 23, 2009 22:29:57 GMT -5
You can't bring up reality in a thread about balance though, you either choose instant re-fire or higher damage, it's that simple and I'd be fine with it.
Don't forget the PTRS also has added tank damage as a perk.
If you want to talk about reality, why is an MP40 2 shot killing you in the foot?
|
|
|
Post by ssog on Jul 24, 2009 0:34:58 GMT -5
You can't bring up reality in a thread about balance though, you either choose instant re-fire or higher damage, it's that simple and I'd be fine with it. Don't forget the PTRS also has added tank damage as a perk. If you want to talk about reality, why is an MP40 2 shot killing you in the foot? You *CAN* bring up reality. Everything doesn't have to be exactly realistic, but it can't run completely contrary to reality. For instance, it'd be like if in MW2 they made the Mini Uzi, a gun known for putting a lot of lead in the air in not a lot of time, into a single-shot much like the M14. It might be balanced, but it doesn't make sense. If IW wanted a powerful, accurate single-shot weapon, there are plenty to choose from, so don't use a renowned sprayer. By the same token, if Treyarch wanted a less damaging bust faster-firing sniper rifle than the Springfield, then don't use a gun designed to pierce tanks. It'd be like turning a shotgun into a sniper rifle for the sake of balance. Balance is important, but there has to be a sanity cap.
|
|
|
Post by imrlybord7 on Jul 24, 2009 1:32:19 GMT -5
The Uzi is also very accurate and has low recoil, but games always portray it as a spray n pray weapon. /useless trivia On the same topic, why the hell does the MP40 have high damage and high recoil while the STG44 has low damage and low recoil? If they just made it the other way around it would have made so much more sense!
|
|
|
Post by robesh on Jul 25, 2009 14:25:38 GMT -5
The Uzi is also very accurate and has low recoil, but games always portray it as a spray n pray weapon. /useless trivia On the same topic, why the hell does the MP40 have high damage and high recoil while the STG44 has low damage and low recoil? If they just made it the other way around it would have made so much more sense! Call of Duty 5 has no balance, and no realism. I just had to say it. But Nazi Zombies is still fun! ;D If the Mini-Uzi is anything like a MAC10, then it is defiantly not accurate. MAC10s have a huge amount of recoil on full-auto, and they malfunction like crazy. I might have shot a bad one, but I'd bet the average MAC isn't very reliable. But I've never shot a Mini-Uzi, so I don't know how it performs.
|
|
|
Post by ssog on Jul 25, 2009 15:02:17 GMT -5
The Uzi is also very accurate and has low recoil, but games always portray it as a spray n pray weapon. /useless trivia On the same topic, why the hell does the MP40 have high damage and high recoil while the STG44 has low damage and low recoil? If they just made it the other way around it would have made so much more sense! Call of Duty 5 has no balance, and no realism. I just had to say it. But Nazi Zombies is still fun! ;D If the Mini-Uzi is anything like a MAC10, then it is defiantly not accurate. MAC10s have a huge amount of recoil on full-auto, and they malfunction like crazy. I might have shot a bad one, but I'd bet the average MAC isn't very reliable. But I've never shot a Mini-Uzi, so I don't know how it performs. The Uzi really is known for its accuracy. It's a big reason why it's such a popular gun.
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on Jul 25, 2009 15:05:20 GMT -5
If the M10 or MAC-11 were in the game, it'd be the Mini-Uzi with a Double Tap'd rate of fire and even more kick. And it would be awesome.
|
|
|
Post by robesh on Jul 25, 2009 16:21:29 GMT -5
(Mini-Uzi + Double Tap) + Double Tap = MAC10 + Double Tap = Best thing ever
|
|
i8
True Bro
Posts: 10,211
|
Post by i8 on Jul 26, 2009 2:38:14 GMT -5
if u can manage the uzis recoil u can destroy P90 users easily and i dont use punctuation because im signed inon a PS3 and its a pain in the ass
|
|
|
Post by imrlybord7 on Jul 26, 2009 12:07:59 GMT -5
Destroy? There's hardly any difference in DPS (same damage, P90 shoots 15.38 shots per second while the Uzi shoots 15.86 shots per second), so whoever shoots first and has better aim will win regardless of weapon choice. And at medium and long range forget about using the Uzi. I can use a silenced P90 without Stopping Power at long range. And let's not forget about those 18 extra shots. The P90 is better hands down.
|
|
|
Post by ssog on Jul 26, 2009 14:30:34 GMT -5
Destroy? There's hardly any difference in DPS (same damage, P90 shoots 15.38 shots per second while the Uzi shoots 15.86 shots per second), so whoever shoots first and has better aim will win regardless of weapon choice. And at medium and long range forget about using the Uzi. I can use a silenced P90 without Stopping Power at long range. And let's not forget about those 18 extra shots. The P90 is better hands down. I was going to post this, but the Uzi does have one advantage over P90- incidental headshots. Vertical recoil results in more unintentional headshots, whereas horizontal recoil simply results in missed shots. People often discuss the degree of the Uzi's recoil (which is significantly greater than the P90s), but rarely discuss the direction of the recoil (vertical > horizontal). Of course, I think that's a very thin advantage and one that is heavily dependent on luck, and I think that the Uzi is definitely the worst SMG, but it's definitely something that factors into the discussion.
|
|
i8
True Bro
Posts: 10,211
|
Post by i8 on Jul 27, 2009 0:32:09 GMT -5
in a close range fight any smg destroys P90 but at further ranges the P90 destroys them the P90 is set to be the middleman smg while skorpion is set to be the corner clearer uzi is the sprayer mp5 is close range and the ak-74u is mr. penatrator ak-74u is my favorite but uzi is a close second
|
|
|
Post by imrlybord7 on Jul 27, 2009 2:34:27 GMT -5
Just because other SMGs have lower TTKs doesn't mean that they destroy the P90. Oftentimes a close range fight is won by whoever could more lead into the air, and I really don't think you are understanding that there is almost no difference in ROF between the Uzi and P90.
|
|
i8
True Bro
Posts: 10,211
|
Post by i8 on Jul 28, 2009 1:05:43 GMT -5
25 rpm more and in a close range fight you usually dont eat up more than 15-20 rounds and both guns have enough ammo in a mag for that also recoil doesn't play a big role because P90 has less than uzi but uzi has vertical recoil vertical is better than horizontal so they even out at close range like u said its who can put the most lead in the air the fastest 25 rpm isnt much but from personal experience it gives the uzi an edge over P90
|
|